Sauve V Canada Case Study

In an application filed with the High Court, Roach's legal team sued the Electoral Commission and the Commonwealth Parliament, arguing that her disqualification from voting violated both S7 and S24 of the Australian Constitution’s requirement that parliament is to be “directly chosen by the people” and the Constitution’s right to political freedom of communication. The High Court believed that the complete ban on prisoners voting was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the principles of representative government. This principle requires that members of parliament are elected into government by the people they seek to represent. Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution require that ‘Senators’ and members of the ‘House of Representatives’ are directly chosen by the people; therefore there is a right to vote, that had been violated by this legislation.

The Canadian government cheated the justice system by moving the trial from Manitoba to Regina. The jury was all white and anglophone which benefitted the government. It should have been a mix of metis, white, anglophone, and francophone. Riel was admitted to a mental asylum in Quebec and stayed there for 19 months.

Inmates praise Vickie Lee Roach as she regains their right to vote Roach’s right to vote was infringed due to the 2006 amendments to commonwealth electoral act 1918 (cmwth act) which states that any prisoner serving a full time sentence at any length. The legislation breached her constitutional rights to vote. The constitutional phrase parliament is ‘directly chosen by the people’ implies the right to Australian citizens to vote and states only those that don’t have the mental capacity are exempt, and despite so, Vickie Lee Roach and all prisoners were still denied the right to vote Roach wasn’t pressured into this case by anyone but herself as she has legal standing due to being directly affected by it.

I believe Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion of Jennifer Troxel et vir. V. Tommie Granville (802-803) was an example of a “good opinion.” The piece was both well-written and backed by appropriate precedent; O’Connor cited Meyer and Stanley v. Illinois, supra, observing, “[The] interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [is] perhaps the oldest of the fundamental [due process] liberty interests recognized by this Court” (802). He additionally emphasized that the Court had not found Granville an unfit mother, nor had the Troxels accused her of being one when the case began. I find the majority opinion of Robin Joy Shahar v. Michael Bowers to be an example of a “bad opinion” for several reasons.

The jury was made up of French speaking Protestants and the judge was from Ontario. The British court was also prejudiced. That’s why I don’t think Riel got justice from the government.

Furthermore, he explains Levesque acknowledges “the constitutional the quality of provinces as equal partners in confederation” (109). This means that all provinces are entitled to the same rights as the others. Although, Levesque’s signature is arguably to keep the support of the Gang of 8 so he would not have to face Trudeau on his own rather than a sincere acceptance of this aforementioned

Aucoin Essay Our new prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau has given a set of democratic reforms to minister LeBlanc who has been given the task to deal with the problems regarding parliament issues. Our prime minister has promised Canadians real change to the way the government governs by committing to invest in Canada’s growing economy, to strengthen the middle-class, to help the hard working class, to provide help to those whom need it most compared to those who do not need it, and to invest in the public to create jobs, economic growth and a broad-based expansion. Aucoin’s democratic reform proposal tests for good reforms that include clear objectives, no loopholes, clear enforcement mechanism, entrench the house of commons power, fixed

Assess the reasons why, after a landslide victory in 1958, the Conservatives lost power in 1963. Assess the reasons why Pierre Trudeau was able to remain in power for so Long. One of reasons that the conservatives win the 958 elections is because they capitalize on the failures of the Liiberals, such as their psh for the American pipeline despite the reservations of many Canadians on American influence in their country. Additionally the leader of the Conservatives, Diefenbaker “seemed to combine the inspiring vision of the prophet, the burning sincwerity of he evangelist, and the annihilating attack of a prosecuting counsel determined on the conviction of a monstrous criminal” (Fellows and Wells, 2013). When the campaigning season came

It is because of this analysis that I find myself agreeing with Sigurdson that the left and right-wing charterphobes are not entirely correct in their disagreement with the Charter. The ideas and critiques proposed are what have convinced me of the author’s approach to Canadian charter, these ideas are what I have taken away as a result of reading this article. Much like the liberals and conservatives opposing views on a variety of different political topics, right and left-wing charterphobes had very different concerns for why they did not agree with having a charter within Canada. Another idea that has been taken away from this article is that accomplishments for the underprivileged individuals such as the new sentencing for offenders found not guilty for reasons of mental illness, voting rights for those with disabilities and so on improve the democratic nature rather than undermine it like the right-wings argued. What I was also able to take away from this article is that the author did not view the charter as perfect and without flaws but rather did not agree with the charterphobia exhibited by the right and left-winged individuals.

Harper argued in court that her rights were being violated, and that having to pay a poll tax was against the 14th amendment. She won her case in a six to three decision. Obviously if Harper had been able to use the 24th amendment to defend herself, the trial would have gone a lot faster. It ends up being very ironic that she was forced to pay a poll tax, but could not use the amendment disallowing poll

Canada is now known to be a diverse, multicultural, bilingual and inclusive nation largely as a result of his work. Pierre Elliott Trudeau also believed in an equal Canada for all, he is primarily the one to introduce rights and freedoms to the citizens of Canada. While some view Pierre Trudeau as impulsive, for enforcing the War Measures Act, Trudeau enacted this for the protection of Canadian citizens against radical extremist and his actions were more rational than impulsive for the situation that had suddenly occurred. Pierre Trudeau was one of Canada’s greatest Prime Minister’s, who’s impact fundamentally changed the course of the nation by introducing multiculturalism, for introducing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and for paradoxically upholding democracy by strong action during the October Crisis.

In the article “Why Released Felons Should Be Allowed to Vote”, author Steve Chapman addresses the concerns of societal members who are worrisome about a released felon’s right to vote. The basis of the article is focused on whether or not those who were once accused of a felony, should be granted voting rights after being released into society after imprisonment or the proportionate punishment has been served. The author’s thesis is that previously convicted felons who have been reformed through rehabilitation or incarceration should receive voting rights after being released into society, and should not be subject to the inquiry of society based on their prior actions. The main argument made by Chapman is those who are against voting

4)Robert J. Sharpe, Patricia I. McMahon Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood. Toronto: Univ of Toronto Press, 2007, 1-206 5) Michael Dorland and Maurice René. Charland, Law, rhetoric and irony in the formation of Canadian civil culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 218. 6) Vivien Hughes.

Before the Charter, many people may argue that Canada was a free and democratic country. Canadians had the freedom of expression, equality and the principles of fundamental justice. What changed with the creation of the Charter was that rights and freedoms were given constitutional status, and judges were given the power to strike down laws that infringed on them. In 1982, most Canadians agreed that the introduction of the Charter was going to monumental. But on the contrary, over 30 years later, numerous laws have been struck down by interpretation of the charter and remedial techniques that have been developed by courts.

The inmate population in prisons is ever so growing. In society, different parties and groups are uncovering flaws in our country, and one of them is how prisoners do not have the right to vote. Even though prisoners are held behind gates, fences, and bars, they are still citizens and are protected by the constitution. But do all the amendments and articles still apply to the inmates? This little wrinkle causes controversy on whether or not prisoners deserve the right to vote.